MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ground-mounted photovoltaic potential in Canada based on proximity to the electrical grid: Prince Edward Island case study

2025· article· en· W4413822723 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Tahir Patel, Sophie Pelland

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Systems and Technologies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoltaic systemGridElectrical engineeringEngineering physicsComputer scienceGeographyEngineeringGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To meet Canada’s target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, installed renewable energy capacity needs to be scaled up quickly. While scaling up, connecting renewable energy systems to the electrical grid will be a critical factor. This article presents a methodology for estimating ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV) potential as a function of distance from the electrical grid, for any region in Canada or elsewhere. The Canadian landmass is mapped on a pixelated spatial grid and each pixel is characterized by four features, namely PV yield, distance from the electrical grid, slope and land cover class. Pixels are then included or excluded from PV potential estimates based on viability tests reflecting suitability for PV deployment. This method is applied to the province of Prince Edward Island (PEI) as a case study. Results highlight the importance of cropland and agrivoltaic applications to ground-mounted PV potential, with potential being roughly 13 times greater when cropland is included. However, even excluding cropland, this analysis suggests that the PV capacities identified in scenarios for PEI in 2050 could be deployed entirely within 1 km of the electrical grid. More granular analyses will be conducted in the future to refine these estimates considering additional constraints faced by PV developers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Systems and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207